Case Summaries 2025-2026

Alleged conflict of interest in hiring (referral)

A discloser alleged that two managers each breached Conflict of Interest Rules by hiring a friend or family member and that all four public servants involved contravened the Rules by failing to report the potential conflict of interest to their Ethics Executive. The Commissioner referred the allegations to the appropriate senior official.

Following an investigation, the senior official found that one manager had participated in the hiring and supervision of a friend, and both the manager and the employee failed to report the potential conflict to their Ethics Executive. The senior official proposed corrective action to address the findings with the individuals involved.

The senior official found that the second allegation about the other two public servants was not substantiated because the person hired was not an extended family member of the manager in question. Although no wrongdoing was found, the senior official took action to ensure both public servants were aware of the Rules and about the process for submitting declarations.

The Commissioner was satisfied with the investigation and the corrective actions, and she closed the file.

Alleged preferential treatment (referral)

A discloser alleged that a public servant contravened subsections 3(1), 6(1) and 6(2) of the Conflict of Interest Rules by supervising his spouse and by involving himself in some aspects of his spouse’s work. The discloser further alleged that both spouses contravened subsection 7(4) of the Rules and subsection 65(3) of the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006 by failing to notify their Ethics Executive of their spousal relationship.

The Commissioner referred the matter to the deputy minister for investigation. The investigation concluded that the respondents each made appropriate conflict of interest declarations and received determination letters from their Ethics Executive. There was also no evidence that the public servant supervised his spouse. The Commissioner found that the deputy minister’s conclusion was reasonable.

The investigation identified two instances where the public servant made decisions that involved his spouse. The deputy minister concluded that the decision at issue did not involve supervising his spouse, and, therefore, the Ethics Executive direction did not restrict the public servant from making these decisions. The Commissioner recommended that the Ethics Executive review the determination and consider giving the direction that the respondent should not make decisions involving his spouse. The Commissioner also suggested that the deputy minister consider making staff aware when conflicts of interest are declared and directions given. In appropriate circumstances, this may enhance staff confidence and avoid the appearance of preferential treatment.

The deputy minister accepted the recommendation. The Commissioner closed the file.

Alleged preferential treatment (referral)

A discloser alleged that a public servant contravened sections 6(1) or 6(2) of the Conflict of Interest Rules by giving preferential treatment, or failing to endeavour to avoid the appearance of preferential treatment, when the public servant assigned temporary positions to three individuals with whom the public servant had personal relationships.

The Commissioner referred the matter to the deputy minister for investigation. The deputy minister found the public servant contravened section 6(2) of the Rules when the public servant hired one individual who had a history of friendship with the public servant’s family member. The deputy minister concluded the public servant did not contravene section 6(2) in the two other temporary assignments. The deputy minister also concluded the public servant did not contravene section 6(1) by giving preferential treatment to any of the three individuals hired because the public servant was addressing staffing issues and had followed OPS hiring practices and the terms of the collective agreement. The deputy minister identified corrective actions, including reviewing best practices and guidance on hiring for temporary positions, reviewing hirings and monitoring hiring processes, requesting hiring managers to notify their reporting manager when they hire family, friends or other known personal acquaintances and to report to their Ethics Executive as required. Resources on temporary hirings were also distributed to management.

The Commissioner was satisfied with the investigation and agreed with the proposed corrective actions but also asked that the deputy minister provide an update on their implementation. The deputy minister confirmed that all the corrective actions had been implemented and that the ministry would monitor matters to ensure that it adhered to best practices. The Commissioner closed the file.

Alleged preferential treatment in hiring (referral)

A discloser alleged that a public servant contravened subsections 6(1) and 6(2) of the Conflict of Interest Rules. The discloser alleged that the public servant gave preferential treatment, or failed to avoid creating the appearance of preferential treatment, by participating in a hiring panel where the successful candidate was alleged to be a close friend.

The Commissioner referred the matter to the deputy minister for investigation. The investigation concluded that although the public servant socialized with the successful candidate outside of work, the hiring process was fair and aligned with Ontario Public Service (OPS) recruitment best practices. The investigator concluded that the public servant did not confer preferential treatment to his friend, and that because the hiring process followed OPS recruitment best practices, it was also successful in avoiding the appearance of preferential treatment. The deputy minister accepted the investigation’s conclusions and found that no wrongdoing occurred, but that remedial education on recruitment would be provided to the public servant and to other hiring managers.

The Commissioner was satisfied with the investigation and with the conclusion that the public servant did not give preferential treatment to his friend during the recruitment process. With respect to the conclusion that the public servant succeeded in avoiding the appearance of preferential treatment, the Commissioner noted that it did not appear that the investigator considered the public servant’s duty to notify their Ethics Executive of an issue under the Conflict of Interest Rules, under subsection 65(3) of the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006, a duty which applies in addition to OPS recruitment best practices. The Commissioner recommended that additional content be added to the remedial education sessions for the public servant and hiring managers, covering the application of subsections 6(1) and 6(2) of the Rules in the recruitment process, along with the  statutory requirement under subsection 65(3) of the Act that public servants, including hiring managers, disclose possible conflict of interest concerns to their Ethics Executive and seek direction.

The deputy minister accepted the recommendation and the Commissioner closed the file.

Alleged preferential treatment (referral)

A discloser alleged that two public servants contravened subsections 6(1), 6(2) and/or 6(3) of the Conflict of Interest Rules. The discloser alleged that one public servant gave preferential treatment to another employee with whom he had a personal relationship and that the second public servant gave preferential treatment, or failed to avoid creating the appearance of preferential treatment, by investigating a workplace complaint initiated by someone alleged to be a close friend.

The Commissioner referred the matter to the deputy minister for investigation. The deputy minister found that the evidence did not establish that either respondent engaged in wrongdoing. In the first allegation, the investigation found that the public servant did not provide assistance that was out of the ordinary or different from what he would have conferred on other employees. In the second allegation, the evidence did not indicate a close friendship that would have influenced the workplace investigation or created a perception of unfairness. The Commissioner was satisfied with the investigation and closed the file.

Alleged conflict of interest (referral)

A discloser alleged that a public servant contravened various sections of the Conflict of Interest Rules in the course of their duties by dealing with a matter in which they had a personal interest. The Commissioner referred the matter to the deputy minister for investigation. The deputy minister found that the public servant had contravened section 6(2) of the Rules, the rule requiring public servants to endeavour to avoid any appearance of preferential treatment, by not filing a conflict of interest declaration in a timely way and by undertaking an administrative task related to the matter. The deputy minister found the public servant did not take any steps to benefit themself. The deputy minister identified corrective actions to be taken, including reminding the public servant of their obligations under the Rules. The Commissioner was satisfied with the investigation and closed the file.

Alleged gross mismanagement, grave danger and contravention of a law (referral)

A discloser alleged that a public servant engaged in gross mismanagement, created grave danger, and contravened an act. The discloser also alleged that two other public servants engaged in gross mismanagement and contravened the Conflict of Interest Rules for inappropriately handling an incident involving the first public servant. A second discloser came forward with a similar allegation that various public servants, including one public servant already named by the first discloser, engaged in gross mismanagement, created grave danger and contravened an act by participating in the same actions as described by the first discloser or by taking steps to cover up what had occurred. There were also allegations, related to the same facts, that two public servants with related work responsibilities had failed to disclose personal relationships that could give rise to a conflict of interest.

The Commissioner referred the allegations to the deputy minister for investigation. The deputy minister provided an initial report on the investigation, but the Commissioner had concerns that findings had been made without notifying the respondents or providing them an opportunity to respond. The Commissioner requested additional information and analysis, including that additional witnesses be interviewed.

Following this, the deputy minister delivered an updated investigation report, in which public servants were found to have engaged in wrongdoing or contravened ministry policy. The deputy minister also found that additional public servants, including a manager not named by the disclosers, engaged in wrongdoing or contravened ministry policies. The deputy minister advised that one of the named respondents no longer worked at the ministry. While the Commissioner was satisfied with the additional investigative work, she questioned the reasonableness of the deputy minister’s findings that certain allegations were not wrongdoing under the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006. However, since the deputy minister advised that the conduct of the public servants who had contravened ministry policies would be addressed, regardless of whether it constituted wrongdoing under the Act, the Commissioner did not ask for the findings to be reconsidered. Instead she provided information about criteria to inform such analysis in future.

The Commissioner also requested further information about why disciplinary action was not proposed for some respondents and made a recommendation on corrective action in relation to the conduct of a manager. The deputy minister advised that non-disciplinary action would be taken with respect to the respondents and explained that certain formal disciplinary action options were not possible given the passage of time and intervening events. The deputy minister also identified a change in leadership and listed specific initiatives to address the problems identified by the investigation. The deputy minister also accepted the recommendation regarding follow-up with the manager in question. The Commissioner was satisfied with the deputy minister’s updated information regarding corrective actions and closed the file.

Alleged conflict of interest — hiring and supervising family member (referral)

A discloser alleged that a public servant contravened the Conflict of Interest Rules by hiring and supervising a family member. It was also alleged that the public servant contravened the Rules by using their employment to benefit the family member and that they gave, or appeared to give, preferential treatment.

The Commissioner referred the matter to the deputy minister for investigation. The deputy minister found that the public servant did not hire or supervise the family member. However, the deputy minister did find that the public servant contravened the Rules by using their employment to benefit the family member, providing preferential treatment and failing to avoid creating the appearance of providing preferential treatment. The deputy minister undertook corrective actions, including issuing a reprimand and providing specific directions and coaching for the public servant.

The Commissioner was satisfied with the investigation and the corrective action and closed the file.

Alleged conflict of interest – benefiting family member and preferential treatment (referral)

A discloser alleged that a public servant contravened subsections 3(1), 6(1) and 6(2) of the Conflict of Interest Rules by using her employment to directly or indirectly benefit a family member and gave preferential treatment or failed to endeavour to avoid the appearance of preferential treatment when she was involved in the hiring of the family member for a short-term assignment. It was also alleged that the public servant and her family member contravened subsection 65(3) of the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006 by failing to notify their Ethics Executive of a personal interest that could raise an issue under the Conflict of Interest Rules.

The Commissioner referred the matter to the deputy minister for investigation. The deputy minister had already conducted an internal investigation prior to the referral and provided the process and outcome of that investigation. The deputy minister found that the public servant contravened subsections 3(1), 6(1) and 6(2) of the Rules and subsection 65(3) of the Act when she sent the family member’s application materials to the hiring manager who had requested suitable candidates for a short-term assignment. The public servant failed to notify her Ethics Executive prior to forwarding the application materials to the hiring manager. The public servant was not involved in the hiring decision, and the family member did not directly report to the public servant.

The deputy minister found that the family member did not contravene subsection 65(3) of the Act because the public servant had filed a conflict of interest declaration prior to the family member’s start date.

The deputy minister undertook corrective actions, including senior managers having discussions with the public servant about the conflict of interest concerns and her obligations going forward. The deputy minister also ensured the public servant did not have delegated authority over her family member during the short-term assignment.

Because the deputy minister advised that it is regular practice for managers to provide suitable candidates for short-term assignments to other managers upon request, the Commissioner recommended that the deputy minister remind all managers that they should not be forwarding their family members’ or friends’ application materials or that they should file a conflict of interest declaration prior to doing so. The Commissioner also suggested that the deputy minister consider making staff aware when conflicts are managed within the ministry in order to make clear that preferential treatment has not been given.

The deputy minister accepted the recommendation and the Commissioner closed the file.

Alleged conflict of interest – supervising family member (referral)

A discloser alleged that two separate romantic relationships in the workplace raised conflict of interest concerns. In each couple, one spouse reportedly had a supervisory role over the other. The discloser alleged that the public servants in supervisory roles may have promoted or supervised their respective spouses, contrary to subsections 3(1), 6(1), 6(2), 7(1), 7(2) and/or 7(3) of the Conflict of Interest Rules. It was also alleged that all four public servants contravened subsection 7(4) of the Rules or subsection 65(3) of the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006 by failing to notify their Ethics Executive of their respective relationships.

The Commissioner referred the matter to the deputy minister for investigation. In an initial report, the deputy minister provided conclusions about the facts of the situation and proposed corrective actions. The Commissioner asked the deputy minister to provide conclusions about whether wrongdoing had occurred and for an update on the proposed corrective actions. In an updated report, the deputy minister found that none of the public servants engaged in wrongdoing. The deputy minister found that while the public servants may not have reported their respective relationships and changes in their responsibilities to their Ethics Executive in a timely way, their managers were aware of the relationships, had given some instruction as to how to manage the inherent conflict, and had not directed the public servants to report their relationship to their Ethics Executive. The investigation also found that one of the relationships had ended.

The Commissioner was satisfied with the extent of the investigation but questioned whether sufficient steps had been taken to address its findings. She recommended that the deputy minister review:

• the internal process for ensuring conflicts of interest are brought to the attention of the Ethics Executive as required by the Act;
• whether sufficient steps had been taken to address the conflict in the case of the couple who remained in a relationship; and
• ways to share information about managing conflicts within an organization to address perceptions of an unaddressed conflict.

The deputy minister accepted the recommendations. The ministry redesigned the internal process for public servants to declare conflicts of interest, created updated guidance materials and included steps to ensure matters would be brought to the attention of the Ethics Executive. The deputy minister confirmed the time frame for these changes to be made and noted that the one couple would be provided with updated direction about how to manage the conflict, based on current information. The Commissioner closed the file.